The Most Expensive Ironing Boards in the World...

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
Of all the useless restrictions that most of us operate under as pilots,
the
"no compensation" rules are among the most trivial,
easiest-to-comply-with.

It all boils down to, "Well, I won't tell if you don't tell"... If a friend
needs help moving his plane and want to pay for the fuel, I'll move it for
him... I might log the hours, I might not... Not because I'm worried about
any stupid ass FAA rule though... More likely because I've got more than
enough hours to go for any advance rating that I might ever want to get, but
I'm unlikely to ever go for them anyway...

"Eduardo K." wrote in message
...
If you try to bribe a cop in Chile you'll go to jail fast, they are
for all reasonable purposes, unbribable. What they are looking for
is filling a quota and keeping illegal taxis at bay but they go WAY
overboard in doing so...

So they've already been bribed by the 'legal' taxi operator associations...
Gotta admire someone who once bribed, stays bribed... Maybe they call it
something different... City transportation operator license fees, perhaps?

I thought it was understood we were talking about the typical case,
not the exceptional ones.

A private pilot going for an instrument rating is a typical case.

The point is that it IS possible for someone to pay for
someone else's training without violating 61.113.

61.113 is not the issue (or at least not the only issue). The FAA's
interpretation of 61.113 is. The interpretation I glean from trying to
make something consistant out of the cases we're talking about implies
that in this case, the pilot is getting free flying, free logging, and
therefore is being "compensated" for flying. And he's having fun to boot.

So your position is that the rule stipulates something, in spite of no
indication that it does, and in spite of no actual enforcement action even
attempting to claim it does?

That's rich.

Not so rich as you seem to make it. The rule says X. The FAA says, in
a certain case, "X means Y", without saying "only in this case does X
mean Y". Therefore, one is vulnerable if one violates Y. It is an
idiotic vulnerability, but it is one nonetheless.

I've yet to see an example of an enforcement action in which the application
of the policy was obviously idiotic.

The tow pilot case is one that comes to mind. Maybe the pilot should
have been busted FOR THE REASON that he was flying in a for-profit
situation (the glider company was getting compensation). Instead he was
butsed FOR THE REASON that he was =personally= getting compensation, the
definition being stretched to include "making a permanent record of
certain events which actually occured".

but IMHO the FAA has been
consistent in focusing on pilot activities that are in at least some
respects similar to commercial operations.

Maybe, but the use stated reasoning that does not follow this.

In your example, you are not flying solely for your own purpose. To
translate that example into something relevant to what I wrote, you'd have
to have three friends chip in for a flight in which you went by yourself for
a $120 hamburger.

Does it matter that the three friends aren't really interested in a
hamburger or in flying, but they go along anyway to keep the pilot
company, or because they want to protect an investment (the pilot flies
to a musical gig, using (for free) equipmenet owned by those three
friends, who would just as soon not let the pilot just take off with it
all.)

Sure it's a bit contrived, so is your limitation.

Then you *do* understand what I wrote means.

Yes. I fully understand what you wrote. I disagree with some of it; we
are exploring exactly where that disagreement originates. (at least
that's what I think we're doing).

When wasn't it illegal? When, and under what rule, did the FAA allow the
holder of a Private pilot certificate operate a charter in which the
passenger simply paid the FBO for the use of the airplane?

Back when I was taking flying lessons, in 1980. The rule was that a
private pilot could share expenses. There was no pro-rata rule. It was
the opinion of my ground instructor (and apparantly quite a number of
others) that this meant that that the amount of sharing was up to the
pilot's discretion; he could share =all= the expenses to the passengers,
so long as they paid "not a penny more". The rental costs $120, I take
three passengers, they each chip in $40, I pay the FBO $120, it's all
ok. As you point out, it makes no difference if they pay me in cash or
check, and it makes no difference whether or not I actually hold the
cash and hand it to the FBO, or the passengers hand the money to the FBO
for me.

Shouldn't be illegal.
Why not?

For the same reason it shouldn't be illegal for me to do the same in a car.

You think it should be legal for a pilot to operate a charter outside the
existing rules governing commercial operations, by flying a passenger
wherever they want to go, as long as that passenger is the one who pays
directly for the airplane?

I certainly don't. If you do, then you have a basic philosophical
difference with the FAA that is far greater than the simple question of how
to interpret the rules.

Why do you call it a charter, when you don't call a shared flight a
charter? After all, the pilot gets a benefit out of a shared flight too.

I think it should be perfectly legal for a private pilot to say to his
classmates that he loves to fly, and if somebody wants to fly somewhere,
he'd be happy to do it, as a private pilot, for expenses. It should not
be legal for him to =misrepresent= himself as a commercial operator
(with the attendent safety and regulatory illusions it would give the
passenger). But I see nothing wrong with somebody from my wife's church
asking me if I'd be willing to fly him to Boston. I see nothing wrong
with it if I'm going to Boston anyway for a different reason, I see
nothing wrong with it if I'm going to Cape Cod and I could drop him off,
and I see nothing wrong with it if I just like to fly and would enjoy
the trip, and I don't really care where I fly. Boston's a good a
destination as any.

Why do you see a problem with it?

That you are calling it a "charter" is telling, because it's not a
charter at all.

Nowadays this is
called "holding out".
Yup, that's true. I don't see how that's specific to college though. It's
true no matter where you are.

It's not specific to college. But college is one place where I think
it's quite appropriate to "hold out" in this manner, so long as a pilot
is not =misrepresnting= the flight as a commercial operation. It's
equally appropriate to "hold out" for car pools too come Spring Break,
and not be prosecuted for "operating an illegal taxi".

Your parenthetical statement is part of the problem. The FAA does not want
the general public to have the impression that non-commercially certificated
pilots and operations are a suitable replacement for the air travel
industry. By restricting pilots from holding themselves out as generally
willing to fly wherever and whenever a person asks them to, the FAA is
attempting to make clear the distinction between an on-demand commercial
operation and a pilot inviting a friend for a recreational flight.

I think this is a poor way to do it. It points to the wrong
differences, it addresses the wrong issues, and it sets traps for what
would otherwise be an innocent operation.

Frankly, they are [more concerned with] with the person who
crosses the line and effectively creates an illegal business out of a
situation disguised as the former.

I agree with that concern. I think they've gone about it wrong.

I'm sorry that you don't understand this, but it's a pretty clear
distinction to me.

I do understand it.

If your friend really wanted to help out, he could just hire someone else to
fly the plane back, with you aboard.

It's not my friend that's concerned (about me). Rather, I want to (be
able to) do a favor for my friend and fly him and his airplane back. I
shouldn't need a commercial certificate to do this.

No one has to. It may be that they have to do less flying without sharing
costs, but no one has to.

Ok, I'll be more specific. They "have to in order to...". Of course
they could choose not to fly as much. That would be an undesirable side
effect.

You are confusing intent of the rule with intent of the actor.

I think both intents are important. Rules should be written to convey
the intent of (i.e. the reason for) the rule. The reason for the rule
should take into account the intent of the actor as well as the action
itself.

Why is my son within his rights to accept this compensation and log the
training?
Because he is not acting as PIC.

Sure he is. He's a fully qualified private pilot, and he's receiving
instruction under the hood. This is fairly typical.

In every case that I have ever read (including some recent ones
posted here), an instructor on board qualified to act as PIC was held to be
PIC.

This is somewhat silly too. And though I can see why the FAA may want
to apply this rule, it has nothing to do with compensation, and to hang
the compensation thing on this is weak.

You believe that the FAA does NOT want to forbid all things that SHOULD be
forbidden?

Yes. Flying in thunderstorms is not forbidden. It's incredibly stupid
though. Flying beyond one's competence is not forbidden (though flying
beyond one's currency is). Some things should not be done by some, but
are ok done by others. This is where judgement comes in, and the FAA
grants pilots much wider latitude here than (say) the DMV. Granting
this kind of latitude inherently fails to forbid some things that should
not be done.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
m...
A private pilot going for an instrument rating is a typical case.

A private pilot going for an instrument rating in which the private pilot is
the one who is acting as PIC is NOT the typical case.

This is the first of many misinterpretations in your most recent post of
things that I've written. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume
that you are so dedicated to your position, that you are unconsciously
misinterpreting what I've written. The alternative is that you are
intentionally ignoring the written meaning of my words.

Either way, I'm going to clarify for you all of these misinterpretations and
then I'm done. You obviously have a predecided notion about what's the
rules should be and what they are, and your interpretation not only of the
case law but also of what I've written is being influenced by that notion.
As well, I have a predecided notion and while I think I'm doing a better job
reading your posts than you are mine, my point of view is still influenced
by that notion and you are so distant from what I feel is a reasonable
approach to looking at the case law and the rules, that I can't imagine this
discussion achieving anything productive.

So, here are your other clarifications, then I'm out of this sub-thread:

The point is that it IS possible for someone to pay for someone else's
training without violating 61.113.

61.113 is not the issue (or at least not the only issue). The FAA's
interpretation of 61.113 is.

Since 61.113 specifically addresses only those situations in which the pilot
is acting as PIC, it very MUCH is the only issue with respect to the
question of whether the pilot acting as PIC affects the application of
61.113. This is entirely outside the question of the FAA's interpretation
of the word "compensation".

Misinterpretation #2.

Not so rich as you seem to make it. The rule says X. The FAA says, in a
certain case, "X means Y", without saying "only in this case does X mean
Y". Therefore, one is vulnerable if one violates Y. It is an idiotic
vulnerability, but it is one nonetheless.

Again, without the pilot acting as PIC, 61.113 is irrelevant.

Misinterpretation #3.

In your example, you are not flying solely for your own purpose. To
translate that example into something relevant to what I wrote, you'd
have to have three friends chip in for a flight in which you went by
yourself for a $120 hamburger.

Does it matter that the three friends aren't really interested in a
hamburger or in flying, but they go along anyway to keep the pilot
company, or because they want to protect an investment (the pilot flies to
a musical gig, using (for free) equipmenet owned by those three friends,
who would just as soon not let the pilot just take off with it all.)

No, it does not matter one bit.

Sure it's a bit contrived,

Yes, it is incredibly contrived, and you would NEVER be able to prove that
assertion in any court, administrative or otherwise.

so is your limitation.

My "limitation" is contrived? It's not contrived...it's a direct
consequence of the rules as stated and interpreted.

Misinterpretation #4.

Then you *do* understand what I wrote means.

Yes. I fully understand what you wrote.

Then why did you write "I don't understand what that means"?

When wasn't it illegal? When, and under what rule, did the FAA allow the
holder of a Private pilot certificate operate a charter in which the
passenger simply paid the FBO for the use of the airplane?

Back when I was taking flying lessons, in 1980. The rule was that a
private pilot could share expenses. There was no pro-rata rule.

So say you. My understanding of the rules prior to the inclusion of the
"pro-rata" phrase is that the FAA always held that "sharing" implied
"pro-rata". They only added that text because there were people like you
and your instructor who wishfully believed otherwise.

Show me some actual documentation that shows that the FAA considered
arbitrary sharing, up to zero contribution from the pilot, as legal
"sharing" of costs for a Private pilot and I'll accept your statement. I
don't believe you can.

Shouldn't be illegal.
Why not?

For the same reason it shouldn't be illegal for me to do the same in a
car.

It IS illegal for you to do the same in a car. Ironically enough, we just
had a bunch of messages in this very newsgroup about unlicensed taxis. It's
the exact same thing.

Why do you call it a charter, when you don't call a shared flight a
charter? After all, the pilot gets a benefit out of a shared flight too.

Because I'm talking specifically about a charter operation, that's why. I'm
not talking about your friend paying the rental rate, I'm talking about the
pilot who flies all sorts of people, hiding the fact that it's in fact a
charter operation by having the people pay for the rental and not accepting
any other payments.

Why in the world do you insist on not only ignoring the fact that I'm using
the word "charter" to mean something specific, but then question me on why I
would use that word? All you've accomplished is to show me that you are so
dead-set on being contrary to what I've written, that you cannot be bothered
to take the time to comprehend what I've written. You just jump to whatever
the first conclusion you find that you can sink your teeth into.

Misinterpretation #5.

I think it should be perfectly legal for a private pilot to say to his
classmates that he loves to fly, and if somebody wants to fly somewhere,
he'd be happy to do it, as a private pilot, for expenses.

Yes, clearly you think it should be.

That you are calling it a "charter" is telling, because it's not a charter
at all.

The operation I'm talking about IS a charter. That you insist on applying
my use of the word "charter" to some other operation, and that you then use
that misinterpretation of my use of the word "charter" to claim that my use
is "telling" is in and of itself telling.

Misinterpretation #6.

It's not specific to college. But college is one place where I think it's
quite appropriate to "hold out" in this manner, so long as a pilot is not
=misrepresnting= the flight as a commercial operation.

I don't see how it's any more appropriate in college than anywhere else. As
far as I know, the FARs don't provide specific waivers for behavior based on
one's age or educational enrollment.

It's equally appropriate to "hold out" for car pools too come Spring
Break, and not be prosecuted for "operating an illegal taxi".

Actually, if someone held out advertising a "car pool" to wherever anyone
else wanted to go, that likely WOULD be illegal.

It's likely that enforcement is almost never pursued, if ever. But that
doesn't change the legality. And in most cases, student car pools occur to
destinations that the students already had in common.

If your friend really wanted to help out, he could just hire someone else
to fly the plane back, with you aboard.

It's not my friend that's concerned (about me). Rather, I want to (be
able to) do a favor for my friend and fly him and his airplane back. I
shouldn't need a commercial certificate to do this.

Nothing is stopping you from doing a favor for your friend as long as you
can afford to. Just as nothing is stopping you from flying anywhere you
want to go, as long as you can afford to.

No one has to. It may be that they have to do less flying without
sharing costs, but no one has to.

Ok, I'll be more specific. They "have to in order to...". Of course they
could choose not to fly as much. That would be an undesirable side
effect.

My inability to turn a profit flying without jumping through a bunch of
regulatory hoops is IMHO a undesirable side effect. So what? That doesn't
justify removing those regulatory hoops. It just means that I don't desire
the side effect.

"That would be an undesirable side effect" carries zero weight as a debating
point.

You are confusing intent of the rule with intent of the actor.

I think both intents are important.

Not with respect to interpreting what I've written. When I used the word
"intent", it was applied to the intent of the actor, not the intent of the
rules. Regardless of what you think is important, you need to stick to my
use of the word if you want to address what I've written.

Misinterpretation #7.

Why is my son within his rights to accept this compensation and log the
training?
Because he is not acting as PIC.

Sure he is. He's a fully qualified private pilot, and he's receiving
instruction under the hood. This is fairly typical.

That does not make him the person acting as PIC. Why you think it does is
beyond me.

In every case that I have ever read (including some recent ones posted
here), an instructor on board qualified to act as PIC was held to be PIC.

This is somewhat silly too.

So your argument that the compensation rules are silly is based on your
claim that the assignment of the PIC rules are silly as well? Forgive if I
find that to be an empty and weightless debating point as well.

And though I can see why the FAA may want to apply this rule, it has
nothing to do with compensation, and to hang the compensation thing on
this is weak.

Have you read 61.113? It is ALL ABOUT who is PIC. The question of who is
acting as PIC absolutely relates DIRECTLY to how 61.113 applies.

You believe that the FAA does NOT want to forbid all things that SHOULD
be forbidden?

Yes. Flying in thunderstorms is not forbidden.

For that to be an example, you need to show that flying in thunderstorms
SHOULD be forbidden *and* that the FAA does NOT want to forbid flying in
thunderstorms. The fact that they haven't done so doesn't show that they
don't want to.

It's incredibly stupid though. Flying beyond one's competence is not
forbidden (though flying beyond one's currency is).

Again, you have not shown either component of the condition to be true.
Neither the requirement that flying beyond one's competence SHOULD be
forbidden, nor that the FAA does NOT want to forbid flying beyond one's
competence.

[...] Granting this kind of latitude inherently fails to forbid some
things that should not be done.

I did not write "that should not be done". I wrote "that SHOULD be
forbidden". These are different things. If you want to provide a
counter-example, you need to conform to the structure of the original
statement.

Anyway, that's a few logical mistakes and no fewer than SEVEN
misinterpretations of what I wrote. Frankly, I don't find that to be a
useful way to discuss anything, and even if you were discussing this in a
logical, error-free manner I can't say that I think there's any benefit from
the discussion.

The rules are as they are, I personally don't find them all that onerous,
and that's that. If you do, get off your butt and lobby some FAA official
or whoever it takes and get the rules changed. You're not going to convince
me that the current rules are all that terrible, but I generally welcome the
sort of relaxation in the rules that you're proposing. Wouldn't bother me
one bit if you got your way. Go for it...you never know what you might
accomplish if you put the same effort into the project as you do in writing
Usenet posts.

Pete

In Chile cab numbers are frozen for pollution and congestion reasons, so
the only legal way to get a new cab is to buy the plate from an old one.

That sounds just like the scam New York has going. Those "plates" are
worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, thanks to their "regulations".

Before that, the number of taxis was so incredibly high you NEVER EVER
had to wait to get one. You could step out of your house and a minute
later a cab would be passing in fron of you. Downtown entire street blocks
were full of them, all empty, all doing 2mph to get a fare.

Something doesn't add up here. If what you say was true, few of those
cab drivers were making money -- and most of them would have ceased
operation within weeks.

If, on the other hand, those guys WERE making money -- and they must
have been -- and you NEVER had to wait for a cab, this sounds like a
win-win situation for all concerned. The cab drivers had a job, and
the cab users had quick, efficient transortation.

Your government getting involved by selling "plates" has accomplished
three things: You now must wait for a cab, your government has added an
invisible (to most) tax to its citizens, and your fare you pay will be
higher. In short, the typical, low-level government fleecing of its
citizens under the guise of "regulation".

You may say that Chile has no low-level corruption, and I have no
reason to doubt you. America has very little of the "pay the cop $100
and he'll look the other way" type of corruption, etiher. What we have
in spades, however, (and it sounds like Chile does, too) is
"corruption by regulation", where the powers that be have codified
their corrupt practices to make them appear legal and moral. The FAA
regulation against buying a friend a tank of gas for helping you is but
one of the many examples of this type of thing.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article .com,
Jay Honeck wrote:
In Chile cab numbers are frozen for pollution and congestion reasons, so
the only legal way to get a new cab is to buy the plate from an old one.

That sounds just like the scam New York has going. Those "plates" are
worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, thanks to their "regulations".

Is true. But price is reasonable as the number is large.


Something doesn't add up here. If what you say was true, few of those
cab drivers were making money -- and most of them would have ceased
operation within weeks.

Most of the taxi drivers were single vehicule owners, not corporations. Any
reasonable corporation would have ceased operation in weeks, but a
middle age father whose only income was the taxi would keep on trying
to make ends meet by skimping on manteinance and safety.


You may say that Chile has no low-level corruption, and I have no
reason to doubt you. America has very little of the "pay the cop $100
and he'll look the other way" type of corruption, etiher. What we have
in spades, however, (and it sounds like Chile does, too) is
"corruption by regulation", where the powers that be have codified
their corrupt practices to make them appear legal and moral. The FAA
regulation against buying a friend a tank of gas for helping you is but
one of the many examples of this type of thing.


And thats why I made the comparison


--
Eduardo K. | Darwin pone las reglas.
http://www.carfun.cl | Murphy, la oportunidad.
http://e.nn.cl |
| Yo.

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
Sorry Larry and Jose, but there's at least one case which is similar in
facts to that which transpired between Jay and his friend and the FAA lost
the case on appeal:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/do...ation/4791.PDF

While an interesting and gratifying read (nice to see the Board overturn an
FAA action once in awhile), I don't see how it's relevant here. The only
point being made here is that *if* compensation is given to the pilot, that
would be a violation.

In the case you're showing us, the outcome very much hinged on the pilot's
ability to show *not only that he had not received compensation*, but also
that he convinced the Board that he had made very clear that the flight was
not a revenue flight, and that he would accept no compensation, not even
payment for the fuel.

If you look at the references to other cases in the decision you posted,
you'll notice that a pilot flying a revenue flight, even if he did not
personally get compensated, also runs afoul of the rules (since the flight
is "for hire", even though the pilot is not). In those cases, however, the
pilot was found to have done so knowingly. In the case you posted, even
though someone received compensation, the pilot himself not only did not, he
also made it very clear at the time that no payment would be required for
the flight, nor accepted.

This was why he was eventually found innocent, and frankly it was hardly a
slam-dunk for him even so. If they'd been having a bad day, I could easily
see the NTSB having taken a slightly different interpretation of the events
and upholding the original charges.

(Why Keenan was willing to pay the invoice sent to him by the other guy
later is an entirely different matter, but only because there was no dispite
about whether the pilot thought the flight was a revenue flight or not).

John Yodice wrote in AOPA Pilot a few years back about a pilot who carried
passengers who merely shared expenses, and who was found guilty of the
compensation rules, simply because those passengers were not traveling for
the same reason as the pilot (if I recall correctly, one or some were going
to a football game, and others or one were not). That may be the case that
Larry and Jose are recalling as well.

Pete

In that paticular case, the passengers paid for the flight, the flight
was solicited and advertised, and the passengers had an expectation of
a comercial operation. These facts were the basis of the FAA ruling. I
agree with the FAA ruling on that case because if a passenger pays for
a comercial flight, they diserve the extra level of safty given by the
part 135 operations.

I don't think this case is very relevaent to the current arguments.

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
Sorry Larry and Jose, but there's at least one case which is similar in
facts to that which transpired between Jay and his friend and the FAA lost
the case on appeal:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/do...ation/4791.PDF

While an interesting and gratifying read (nice to see the Board overturn an
FAA action once in awhile), I don't see how it's relevant here. The only
point being made here is that *if* compensation is given to the pilot, that
would be a violation.

In the case you're showing us, the outcome very much hinged on the pilot's
ability to show *not only that he had not received compensation*, but also
that he convinced the Board that he had made very clear that the flight was
not a revenue flight, and that he would accept no compensation, not even
payment for the fuel.

If you look at the references to other cases in the decision you posted,
you'll notice that a pilot flying a revenue flight, even if he did not
personally get compensated, also runs afoul of the rules (since the flight
is "for hire", even though the pilot is not). In those cases, however, the
pilot was found to have done so knowingly. In the case you posted, even
though someone received compensation, the pilot himself not only did not, he
also made it very clear at the time that no payment would be required for
the flight, nor accepted.

This was why he was eventually found innocent, and frankly it was hardly a
slam-dunk for him even so. If they'd been having a bad day, I could easily
see the NTSB having taken a slightly different interpretation of the events
and upholding the original charges.

(Why Keenan was willing to pay the invoice sent to him by the other guy
later is an entirely different matter, but only because there was no dispite
about whether the pilot thought the flight was a revenue flight or not).

John Yodice wrote in AOPA Pilot a few years back about a pilot who carried
passengers who merely shared expenses, and who was found guilty of the
compensation rules, simply because those passengers were not traveling for
the same reason as the pilot (if I recall correctly, one or some were going
to a football game, and others or one were not). That may be the case that
Larry and Jose are recalling as well.

Pete

In that paticular case, the passengers paid for the flight, the flight
was solicited and advertised, and the passengers had an expectation of
a comercial operation. These facts were the basis of the FAA ruling. I
agree with the FAA ruling on that case because if a passenger pays for
a comercial flight, they diserve the extra level of safty given by the
part 135 operations.

I don't think this case is very relevaent to the current arguments.

Jay Honeck wrote:

In Chile cab numbers are frozen for pollution and congestion reasons, so
the only legal way to get a new cab is to buy the plate from an old one.

That sounds just like the scam New York has going. Those "plates" are
worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, thanks to their "regulations".

that was also the situation in Dublin (Ireland) when I was living
there; at the time, the going rate -- or so the rumor said -- was
around 50k Irish Pounds (no Europ yet), which at the time, about
ten years ago, could buy you a house, or a very nice appartment
downtown. The nominal fee was of course much lower. The thing
almost turned to riots when the gvt released a bunch new licenses at
said nominal fee, thus upsetting a very lucrative 'derivative'
market...

--Sylvain

Jay,

I don't think I'll ever let a prop shop "overhaul" another prop, unless the
blades are in really bad shape.

The prop shops GRIND away huge amounts of blade and that's why one can never
get more than 3 overhauls on a blade. I need a re-seal right now on my prop.
I'm getting oil on the windshield. It is difficult to keep a BIG prop sealed
because of all the weight being slung around.

So......I just want to have the blades lightly sanded, forget the grinder.
There aren't any rock chips anyway and no peeling from float operations.
Re-seal, sand and paint. Only Pt.135 airplanes require a certified overhaul.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
After you overhauled your engine did you get a dynamic prop balance?

When accessories or their mounting brackets start cracking that's a good
place to start looking.

Interesting point. We *have* noticed some vibration in the yoke (most
visible on the yoke-mounted GPS) lately, and have discussed getting the
prop balanced (like we did on our old Warrior) -- but when IT started
leaking, we kind of put that on hold.

Now, of course, the prop has STOPPED leaking of its own accord, just to
**** me off...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"